Good points. I also think the fediverse and Lemmy, in particular, could be attractive to certain bad actors in terms of misinformation and astroturfing, and vote manipulation would certainly help with that. I think some people think we’re safer here from that because of smaller size, etc. - but I think Lemmy users are more likely to be willing to engage (as we wouldn’t be here without willing to take leave of places like Reddit), and influencing the conversations on Lemmy could be a significant boost to someone looking to share misinformation or make a difference in very tight elections.
On the whole, I think that’s one of the reasons Lemmy needs better built-in moderation tools than what might otherwise be thought appropriate based on its size. And an overall maturity of the platform to protect against that kind of manipulation.
I had my own venture-capital firm, and there was this weird way where I felt like I had succeeded at climbing the ladder of meritocracy, but I had also found the values of the meritocracy, frankly, deeply wanting and deeply lacking
If he’s being honest, at least in the terms of his motivations, he’s confusing meritocracy with capitalism. He “succeeded” at capitalism, and mistook that for having been judged to be some quality of merit, and then became disillusioned by meritocracy- probably because he succeeded without any real merit. A lot of his current ideology seems to be based on the rejection of something he fundamentally misunderstood.
I mean, how could we tell if you’ve ever even read them as you refuse to discuss them or even talk about why you thought they were interesting enough to share?
Also, considering your frequent errors and comment editing and what you chose to share, I don’t believe we share equivalent standards on writing or journalistic quality.
Wow, speak of the devil! Lemmy growing for the sake of growing just recreates Reddit. Every forum is dominated by a super minority of posters, a small minority of commenters, and a super majority of lurkers. Nothing has changed about that since the Usenet days you claim to be old enough to remember.
Posts without thought or of low quality encourage people to go elsewhere. The answer is not more crap posted by more people, it’s quality posts from diverse users with healthy and good faith discussions. So basically the opposite of what you do with the volume and choice of articles you share, and your rampant attempts to stifle and distract from constructive discussions in the comments.
Poorly sourced and written articles presenting issues without context are not only actively harmful to this community but harmful to the prospect of Lemmy and the fediverse as a whole. The fact that this is something you don’t recognize surprises me not at all.
Scintillating conversationalist! Great, so you’re one of the only folks I’ve seen step forward with help. Still doesn’t change the fact you claim to be speaking for “everyone” when you, in fact, do not speak for everyone.
You know how I can tell someone is full of bullshit. When they start claiming they’re talking for everyone. From the comment you linked to:
show callous indifference to how everyone in the community sees it…
That’s patently untrue and weakens every argument you have about it. The funniest thing to me about all the anti-botters is that you all never bother to come up with a suggestion on how to improve it or change how it’s implemented. It’s this knee jerk emotional reaction that you then spend paragraphs rationalizing to each other.
Within the constraints we have with Lemmy as the platform it is, the options for mods are limited for now. How do you propose addressing the issues that the bot attempts to solve if you get rid of the bot?
I’ve heard it used that way - basically taken to mean “It’s over that way in a straight line” but then usually followed by directions on how to get there via a twisty route because there’s no direct path there.
The problem is the laymen expect it to do reasoning, so the sales & marketing team says that it can do reasoning, and then the CEO will have consumed the Kool-Aid and restructure the company because he believes it can do reasoning.
So you seem really angry about something and I was literally just asking for clarification on why you felt the way you did. Sorry for taking an interest
I guess I’m confused. Why don’t you just block it? What offends you about it so much that you not only don’t want to see it, you don’t want anyone else to see it?
I said they were profligate in their posting, not spamming. Say, for instance, users with 1.6k posts in around 60 days. Personally I feel they have been spamming, but the mods think differently and that’s fine. However they are pretty universally regarded as posting and commenting to an unhealthy degree.
geekwithsoul @ geekwithsoul @lemm.ee Posts 27Comments 596Joined 2 yr. ago
Good points. I also think the fediverse and Lemmy, in particular, could be attractive to certain bad actors in terms of misinformation and astroturfing, and vote manipulation would certainly help with that. I think some people think we’re safer here from that because of smaller size, etc. - but I think Lemmy users are more likely to be willing to engage (as we wouldn’t be here without willing to take leave of places like Reddit), and influencing the conversations on Lemmy could be a significant boost to someone looking to share misinformation or make a difference in very tight elections.
On the whole, I think that’s one of the reasons Lemmy needs better built-in moderation tools than what might otherwise be thought appropriate based on its size. And an overall maturity of the platform to protect against that kind of manipulation.